New Hampshire: How ’bout we blow your minds and hold our primary three months from now?

posted at 8:15 pm on September 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

Nothing’s set in stone up north, but Florida officially moved its own primary to January 31st today so the early-state dominoes are about to fall. Here’s the first domino, already wobbling. New Hampshire’s potentially much more of a Christie state than a Palin state, so of the two late entrants, this would hurt him more than her. But of course, if New Hampshire moves up to December, Iowa’s going to move too to retain its pride of place. And Iowa’s probably a must-have for her if she gets in.

This year, it’s a Christmas caucus!

New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, who has unilateral control to set the Granite State’s date, moved up the presidential primary filing period to begin Oct. 17 and ending October 28, signaling the New Hampshire primary contest will be moved up in the calendar.

“Unfortunately, we’ll be unable to have the upcoming presidential primary on the second Tuesday in March and will continue to honor the tradition of our first-in-the-nation presidential primary,” Gardner told NBC News. “Because we cannot rule out of the possibility of conducting the primary before the end of this year, we are, regrettably, as we were four years ago, forced to move the presidential candidates filing period to October.”

Until today, the first ballot deadline was Florida’s on October 31. New Hampshire just shaved three days off that window. (There’s no deadline for Iowa because it’s a caucus.) And even for the later primaries, there’s not as much time left as you think:

Furthermore, the number of hoops candidates must jump through to get on some states’ ballots means it is likely already too late to enter the 2012 fray, said Matthew Sanderson, who helped with balloting issues for Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. In Virginia, for instance, candidates have until Dec. 22 to submit the signatures of 10,000 qualified voters, including 400 from each congressional district. The Virginia State Board of Elections recommends that candidates collect 15,000 to 20,000 signatures and 700 from each district “because many people who are not registered to vote will sign a petition.”

Mr. Sanderson said the drop-dead date is fast approaching. A late entry, he said, is not “impossible, but it does make success harder to achieve.”

Christie could get this done, I assume, because some of his core support is coming from fabulously wealthy Republican donors who can bankroll the staff needed to get the petitions done. Palin, whose organization is more DIY and heavily dependent on small donors, may have a tougher time. As for why Florida would move its primary up knowing that the RNC will penalize it by subtracting half of its delegates, two reasons. One: New Hampshire and South Carolina will also lose half their delegates by moving up to stay ahead of Florida, so to some extent the cost is spread. Two: Who cares about the delegates? Unless the GOP race goes down to the wire in the spring, the nomination won’t turn on those lost delegates. It’s more important for Florida to be seen as an early kingmaker than to retain all of its convention votes.

Via Newsbusters, here’s video of NRO’s Robert Costa, who hears from Christie’s people that you-know-who is “closer now to running than he ever has been.” The AP and the Newark Star-Ledger are hearing more or less the same thing. The decision might be made this weekend or early next week, but we’ll know soon. As for Palin, I’ve seen no signs. But Red State is keeping a solitary vigil

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

ME 1, YOU 0.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 9:30 PM

After all, that is what matters.

alwaysfiredup on October 1, 2011 at 10:06 PM

After all, that is what matters.
alwaysfiredup on October 1, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Do you have anything to say about Palin’s endorsement of Project Labor Agreements? Anything? Bueller?

I didn’t think so.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Do you have anything to say about Palin’s endorsement of Project Labor Agreements?

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:14 PM

Sounds like a position that a majority of heavily-unionized Alaskans would like.

Oh, wait, that was a rhetorical put-down, wasn’t it. Still waiting for you to earn your “good people” rep.

alwaysfiredup on October 1, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Sounds like a position that a majority of heavily-unionized Alaskans would like.
alwaysfiredup on October 1, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Wait! Are you saying that Palin does things out of political expediency?! That’s she’s not as much a free market capitalist as some believe? Could she be a “crony unionist”? Say it ain’t so!

As for the rest of your comment, I won’t dignify it with a response.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:28 PM

P.S. Good night.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:37 PM

The Obots stink of fear.

poplicola on October 1, 2011 at 11:52 PM

Wait! Are you saying that Palin does things out of political expediency?! That’s she’s not as much a free market capitalist as some believe? Could she be a “crony unionist”? Say it ain’t so!

As for the rest of your comment, I won’t dignify it with a response.

Buy Danish on October 1, 2011 at 10:28 PM

Talk about the “usual whole lot of nothing”. Here’s another PDSer making some sloppy analogy a la Bradky. What point are you trying to make? What is the equivalence between a PLA and Merck or investment houses contributing to a campaign? There is none. “Crony unionism”? Are you saying that the unions are or were putting cash in Palin’s pocket? Evidence? Anything? Bueller?

And who said that private-sector unions in themselves are eeeeevillllle?

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 11:53 PM

ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 11:53 PM

You do realize that Merck contributed to the McCain-Palin campaign don’t you?

But somehow you will determine “that’s different”.

The problem is you continually try to make a saint out of a human.

Bradky on October 2, 2011 at 7:38 AM

You do realize that Merck contributed to the McCain-Palin campaign don’t you?

But somehow you will determine “that’s different”.

The problem is you continually try to make a saint out of a human.

Bradky on October 2, 2011 at 7:38 AM

Oh, wow! Zinger! You do realize she never mandated a Gardasil vaccine, don’t you? And would it have been in her power to turn down any donation to the McCain campaign?

Your problem is that you’re just full of hate.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 9:08 AM

What point are you trying to make?
ddrintn on October 1, 2011 at 11:53 PM

I don’t blame you for sounding hysterical (emphasis mine):

Anti-competitive project labor agreements (PLAs) are special interest schemes that end open, fair and competitive bidding on public works projects. PLAs drive up the cost of construction by reducing competition and effectively excluding merit shop contractors and their skilled employees from building projects paid for by their own tax dollars.

Typical PLAs are pre-hire contracts that require projects be awarded only to contractors and subcontractors that agree to:

recognize unions as the representatives of their employees on that job
use the union hiring hall to obtain workers
obtain apprentices exclusively from union apprenticeship programs
pay into underfunded and mismanaged union benefit plans
obey costly, restrictive and inefficient union work rules

In the end, government-mandated PLAs prevent taxpayers from getting the best possible product at the best possible price.

Gee, and I thought St. Sarah of Wasilla was a champion of the people, fighting against “Special Interests”. Her PAC was raising money using that theme just last week. And you know who is squarely with Palin on this issue? President Zero:

On February 6, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13502, which repeals Executive Order 13202 and encourages federal agencies to require PLAs on federal and federally funded construction projects in excess of $25 million. Executive Order 13202 had prohibited federal agencies and recipients of federal financial assistance from requiring wasteful and discriminatory union-only PLAs on federal and federally funded construction projects. Construction contracts subject to union-only PLAs are usually awarded to unionized contractors and their all-union workforces.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 9:51 AM

Sweet. Hey, look who used the “crony” word:

WSJ Editorial Blasts Obama Gift to Big Labor, Calls Project Labor Agreements “Crony Contracts”

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM

I don’t blame you for sounding hysterical (emphasis mine):

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 9:51 AM

“Hysterical”? You’re the one with the endless series of breathless posts just DYING to show us that Palin is just as corrupt and in the pocket of “special interests” as your faves, but you never really do anything to demonstrate that. PLAs maybe bad policy, but I don’t see how they amount to “crony unionism”. You don’t either, really.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Sweet. Hey, look who used the “crony” word:

WSJ Editorial Blasts Obama Gift to Big Labor, Calls Project Labor Agreements “Crony Contracts”

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Sweet. PLAs exist in Alaska. The WSJ uses the “crony” word in describing PLAs. Sarah Palin therefore is a “crony unionist”! What a dumbass. Try again, and use a little, you know, logic and reason every now and then.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Look who is not for PLA’s:

May 24, 2011 – 4:57 pm

Today the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations passed an important amendment for the Fiscal Year 2012 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Appropriations Act that will prohibit federal agencies from mandating anti-competitive and costly project labor agreements (PLAs) and discriminatory PLA preferences on projects funded by the bill.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), ensures fair, open and competitive bidding by all qualified businesses competing for federal construction contracts funded by MilCon Appropriations dollars.

The Flake amendment will eliminate inefficiencies in the federal contracting procurement process, increase competition, reduce costs, and create construction jobs while protecting the public interest.

And look who else opposes PLAs:

On April 6, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1403, which prohibits state and local entities from requiring contractors to sign a PLA as a condition of performing taxpayer funded construction (learn more here).

and

On Friday, Tennessee became the eighth state to pass a similar measure or adopt an executive order prohibiting PLA mandates.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 10:10 AM

Look who is not for PLA’s:
May 24, 2011 – 4:57 pm

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 10:10 AM

PLAs are bad policy. So?

I take it that “crony unionism” means that Palin profited directly from PLAs. Any evidence of that? Otherwise this is just pathetic grasping at straws.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM

I take it that “crony unionism” means that Palin profited directly from PLAs. Any evidence of that? Otherwise this is just pathetic grasping at straws.
ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Ha! You’re the one who is desperately “grasping at straws”. Did Perry ‘profit directly’ from Merck? No. Could the donations to his campaign have affected his public policy decisions vis a vis Gardisil? Possibly. Who made an issue of this, and cited it as an example of “Crony Capitalism”? Saint Palin.

Did unions donate to Palin? How about you check on that for me, would you? I betcha they did. At the very least she was buying votes by catering to their “Special Interests” to the exclusion of non-union workers and to the detriment of taxpayers who pay more for public projects under PLAs.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Ha! You’re the one who is desperately “grasping at straws”. Did Perry ‘profit directly’ from Merck? No. Could the donations to his campaign have affected his public policy decisions vis a vis Gardisil? Possibly.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Good Lord. The second half of that statement contradicts the first half. Merck donated to Perry’s campaign and also to the RGA. If this is all the Mittbots have, they’re screwed.

As for contributions, there was this from lefty rag the UK Guardian”

I compared the numbers to her predecessor Frank Murkowski’s campaign finance reports from 2002, his last successful run. At the very least, the numbers indicate she ran outside the state GOP establishment, if not against it.

Among the findings:

$1.2m of the total $1.3 million raised in her statewide political career came from individuals. That’s not surprising because the state, which has some of the strictest campaign finance laws in the country, bans direct contributions from corporations. That’s less than former Murkowski, whom Palin beat in the 2006 primary, raised in 2002, $1.9m.

State and local Republican parties in 2006 gave Palin $75,183. As a portion of the total that’s not much. By contrast, party organisations gave Frank Murkowski $222,258 in 2002.

Lawyers and lobbyists in 2006 gave Palin $34,283, compared to $100,514 for Murkowski in 2002.

I’m not comparing her take to Murkowski’s 2006 primary haul, because it is clear from looking at the money that by then the state establishment had tired of him and was looking for fresh blood. But the comparison between her 2006 haul and Murkowski’s of 2002 suggests to me that she did not enjoy the backing of the Republican party establishment, at least not on any level approaching that which her predecessor enjoyed.

Source, and follow the links.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 10:51 AM

2006 donations to Palin.

Good Lord. The second half of that statement contradicts the first half. Merck donated to Perry’s campaign and also to the RGA.

Yes. What’s your point? PALIN is the one who made an issue of this, not me, not Mitt Romney. This has nothing to do with Romney.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Looking at the PDF linked at that article, we find:

while labor organizations gave $14,415.

Man, that’s some serious cash there.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Good Lord. The second half of that statement contradicts the first half. Merck donated to Perry’s campaign and also to the RGA.

Yes. What’s your point? PALIN is the one who made an issue of this, not me, not Mitt Romney. This has nothing to do with Romney.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Yes. Merck donated to the Perry campaign. Perry mandated use of a Merck product, and some connected with Perry were apparently on the Merck payroll. There is nothing really analogous to contributions to Palin here. You’re going to have to do better.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Perry received approx. $5000 a year from Merck. Palin received $14,415 from labor organizations in 2006. The Pipeline (if built) will use labor who are under PLA agreements, because of her mandate, a mandate her successor, Sean Parnell, refuses to rescind. This is megabucks we’re talking about here.

I don’t see the difference between crony unionism and crony capitalism.

In 2007, the Alaska Legislature enacted the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). AGIA allowed a successful applicant state reimbursement of 50 percent of qualifying expenses through the initial open season and 90 percent thereafter. The reimbursements are capped at $500 million. In exchange for the AGIA license, the applicant had to agree to a number of “must haves” including rolled-in pipeline tariffs, an aggressive development schedule, an open season in 2010, proceeding through full licensing by the FERC, and a commitment to use project labor agreements with unions. The AGIA is a financial partnership with the State of Alaska and does not give the licensee an exclusive right to permits or state rights of way.

Elsewhere I see Palin said about the bill she signed:

“The Legislature voted in support of AGIA and subsequently supported issuing TransCanada the AGIA License because the legislators recognized the importance of this investment to our state’s economic future. AGIA and its ‘must haves’ protect the value of the resources that belong to all Alaskans.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Buy Danish why are you so afraid of Palin? Instead of spending so much effort talking about a candidate you don’t like, why not tell us about your preferred next President? (or is it Obama again?)

poplicola on October 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM

don’t blame you for sounding hysterical (emphasis mine):

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 9:51 AM

I don’t blame you anti-Palinistas for accusing Palinistas of hysteria, that’s ALL you got left.

Oops, that didn’t sound too hystrical, did it?

listens2glenn on October 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Perry received approx. $5000 a year from Merck.

Um, no.

Texas Governor Rick Perry received at least $23,500 in campaign contributions from drug-maker Merck & Co., including $5,000 in 2006, the year before he ordered girls throughout the state to take a new Merck vaccine.
The total is greater than the $5,000 that Perry, seeking the Republican presidential nomination, acknowledged receiving from the company during a debate last night in Florida.
The drug-maker also has donated about $500,000 to the Republican Governors Association, a group which Perry chaired twice and has been among his most generous campaign donors.
In addition, Perry’s ties to the company have come under scrutiny because he issued the vaccination mandate at a time when his former chief of staff was working for the Texas Lobby Group, which was retained by Merck.

Source.

Palin received $14,415 from labor organizations in 2006.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

One of which was a corrections officers’ union. I wonder what sort of kickback they got for that?

Come on. You’re pathetically grasping at straws. Apples and oranges.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Buy Danish why are you so afraid of Palin?
poplicola on October 2, 2011 at 12:59 PM

LOL. I’m not afraid of Palin! Are you afraid of the truth? How about you address the specific issues instead of using transparently diversionary tactics where you try to make it about me.

I don’t blame you anti-Palinistas for accusing Palinistas of hysteria, that’s ALL you got left.
listens2glenn on October 2, 2011 at 1:27 PM

How about you explain the difference between Crony Capitalism and Crony Unionism, between her “special interests” (in this case the unions who were handed a PLA) and the “special interests” of everyone else. Remember, she’s the one who picked this fight.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Perry received approx. $5000 a year from Merck. Palin received $14,415 from labor organizations in 2006. The Pipeline (if built) will use labor who are under PLA agreements, because of her mandate, a mandate her successor, Sean Parnell, refuses to rescind. This is megabucks we’re talking about here.

By the way, uh huh. Megabucks which are going to Palin? You find a tie-in with her campaigns or her PAC, and you’ll have a point. Otherwise it’s just pathetic and desperate.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 4:28 PM

How about you explain the difference between Crony Capitalism and Crony Unionism, between her “special interests” (in this case the unions who were handed a PLA) and the “special interests” of everyone else. Remember, she’s the one who picked this fight.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Crony capitalists benefit directly. You’ve yet to show how Palin benefited from “crony unionism”.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

LOL. I’m not afraid of Palin! Are you afraid of the truth? How about you address the specific issues instead of using transparently diversionary tactics where you try to make it about me.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 4:26 PM

LOL…you mean diversionary tactics such as saying that 14k in union contributions are on the same level as half a mil from Merck? You’re hilarious. Keep grasping at those straws, though. It’s entertaining.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM

LOL…you mean diversionary tactics such as saying that 14k in union contributions are on the same level as half a mil from Merck?
ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 4:31 PM

That’s not a diversionary tactic. That’s a factoid which you cited. How about this: Do you agree with Palin and Obama that unions should have PLAs or do you agree with Bush and Flake (and Jan Brewer and others)? If that pipeline ever gets built the unions benefit. How is that not a form of cronyism? She didn’t plan on resigning when she signed that agreement, so this was a long term benefit for her by harnessing their political support.

BTW, where did you get the half a mil figure for Merck? I thought it was $30,000.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM

That’s a factoid which you cited. How about this: Do you agree with Palin and Obama that unions should have PLAs or do you agree with Bush and Flake (and Jan Brewer and others)?

Did Palin create the whole PLA notion?

If that pipeline ever gets built the unions benefit. How is that not a form of cronyism? She didn’t plan on resigning when she signed that agreement, so this was a long term benefit for her by harnessing their political support.

Listen carefully to this question, once again: how is Palin benefiting from whatever is done?

BTW, where did you get the half a mil figure for Merck? I thought it was $30,000.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 5:00 PM

The half million was to the RGA which in turn is a big contributor to Rick Perry. The whole relationship there has yet to be fleshed out fully.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Listen carefully to this question, once again: how is Palin benefiting from whatever is done?

She quit, remember?

The half million was to the RGA which in turn is a big contributor to Rick Perry. The whole relationship there has yet to be fleshed out fully.
ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Hey, I betcha if Palin was still Governor she would have gotten donations too.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Missed this:

Crony capitalists benefit directly. You’ve yet to show how Palin benefited from “crony unionism”.
ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 4:29 PM

How did Perry benefit directly from Merck? It’s not like he had stock in Merck like Obama’s cronies and Solyandra.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM

I caught Noonan on NBC today talking about the possibility of Palin running. Don’t have the exact quote, but I remember the key words, that Palin while not a reflective or thoughtful person, was a deeply cunning person.

You are supposed to know the cunning part, I was not certain what she meant. I never thought of Palin as cunning, but then, I am not a beetle larva worried about garden snakes in my tunnel. It’s all from your perspective, I guess.

The gist of the roundtable was the non relective, non thoughtful Palin would not run, but would continue to use her cunnning like an attack mosauito (my words)

In any case, some folk are obviously putting the squeeze play on the opposition shortening the timetable. That’s politics.

Still sorry I caught that program. Nasty

entagor on October 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM

How did Perry benefit directly from Merck?

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Campaign donations, genius.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Hey, I betcha if Palin was still Governor she would have gotten donations too.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Good Lord, how stupid. I betcha if my uncle were a man he’d be my aunt.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 8:07 PM

* a woman, rather. The point is, you haven’t demonstrated any sort of linkage. Palin gets contributions, then she’s no better than a crony capitalist!!! That’s called “flailing”.

ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Campaign donations, genius.
ddrintn on October 2, 2011 at 8:06 PM

That’s how Palin describes it (Big Donors), but that does not define ‘crony capitalism’ (which gets to the root of my Big Problem with her innuendo game). Still waiting to hear what y’all think of Palin’s PLA deal for the unions who were meant to build the pipeline which hasn’t happened yet.

Buy Danish on October 2, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5